Google, Verizon Weasel Their Way Out of Net Neutrality

Well, this is interesting. As some rumours already suggested, Google and Verizon have released a joint proposal for a legislative framework regarding net neutrality. This being Google and all, some of you may expect this to be all flower-farting unicorns darting across rainbows, but sadly, that’s not the case. This proposal? Well, it’s not good.

If you can’t redefine the word “neutrality”, redefine the word “Internet” instead.

This comment on the Google Blog pretty much sums it up. In the proposal, Google and Verizon pretty much butcher the concept of the internet, slicing it up into three different parts, and only one of those parts gets enforced net neutrality.

First, there’s what they call the wired internet. This is the one which is supposed to get the full net neutrality unicorn, with a prohibition on either degrading or prioritising lawful traffic. In addition, wired internet providers must be fully transparent about the services they offer. This sounds pretty good.

But then.

Then Google and Verizon pull a major testicle move by slicing up the internet purely based on access method: there’s now a “wireless” internet too (3G/4G and the like). Apparently, this internet is entirely different, simply because you access it via a different type of medium. I guess this explains why OSNews is pink when accessed over 3G (?!?). This wireless internet will not have net neutrality of any kind.

Then there’s apparently a third internet, titled “Additional Online Services”. This is supposed to be some sort of premium internet, superimposed over the across-the-train-tracks neutral/transparent internet.

“Our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon’s FIOS TV) offered today,” Google and Verizon write, “This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options.”

Yeah, this is pretty bad and completely arbitrary; the internet is the internet, whether I access it through 3G, cable, or smoke signals. This Additional Online Services thing is basically a major cop-out on Google’s part – I never expected any different from Verizon, being a US carrier and all.

Of course, this would only apply to US citizens, but Google is a large company, and surely, they’ve got major pull in Europe as well. For now, this is just a proposal, and the FCC hasn’t commented just yet.

And this is where google will make a crap ton of money on this. If you think of how much internet traffic comes in currently with Android on Verizon’s phones it’s mind blowing. Both companies can tap into this area for untold amounts of cash and true neutrality in this arena could hurt profits for both companies. The version google and verizon are offering up is a “we’ll meet you in the middle” type of solution. More details need to come out, and a formal response from the FCC is needed. But as for real neutrality, I wouldn’t hold my breath on this one…

I wonder why no one pointed this out, but Thom’s reading of the deal is entirely wrong:

“This wireless internet will not have net neutrality of any kind.”

This is nonsense! All three tiers will have net neutrality (someone already clarified this in a google blog). Throttling happens between tiers and not between different entities within one tier. For example, voice and video gets prioritized on wireless broadband, but not one particular provider (ie skype can’t pay to have more bandwidth available than google voice). This has been discussed here earlier:

Actually, if you had ever managed any network, you’d know that torrents are generally the cause of “the crappyest internet you can imagine”.

It’s never (never) http traffic. Never once have I observed this to be a problem. Torrents, kazaa, … (whether the actual traffic was legal or not), have managed to create a more than just crappy internet experience for my customers on dozens of occasions.

I know, it’s probably the ISP’s (ie. our) fault for being “too greedy”. But we’re a startup isp, not even profitable yet, so I wonder how you can claim such a thing with a straight face. So, yes, we throttle torrents. Slowing down torrents 10% between 14h and 20h eliminated half the traffic. Doing this, I have calculated, allows us to wait 2 years with a rather large hardware upgrade that would otherwise be immediately necessary (and then we wouldn’t be able to match the cheapest price in the market anymore).

If net neutrality ever becomes law the way the kiddies around here want it to, we will have no choice : we will need to implement traffic limits (20G per month or smallband, something like that).

The issue with torrents and p2p in general is more than just this hardware investment. P2p traffic increases more than linearly with the number of (home) customers you have. Revenues obviously only increase linearly. Even if we wanted to, we wouldn’t be able to do this. And there’s the more fundamental problem that the internet simply can’t take it. It doesn’t scale. Believe this or not, but please have this discussion on the IETF mailing list before anyone passes moronic laws, thinking they’ll get free stuff.

And for wireless internet : there the case is simply that the bandwidth available (on the radio link) is so small that you HAVE to do prioritisation, or no-one will ever even see a webpage on their phone. In general, networks with speeds under 2mbit or-so, will not operate reliably without traffic prioritisation.

I hear from colleagues on the internet (some in much bigger ISPs) that they’re in similar situations. Net neutrality will mean low traffic limits.

If net neutrality ever becomes law the way the kiddies around here want it to, we will have no choice : we will need to implement traffic limits (20G per month or smallband, something like that).

I would say that in an ideal world, traffic should not be throttled for any reasons. However, I think your scenario totally makes sense. Here is my take on it:

Pretty much any legal torrent content can also be downloaded through HTTP. (The main reason people use torrents for legal traffic is because it is often faster, e.g. when downloading Ubuntu on the day of the release.) So if torrents cause ISPs to have to raise prices, add data caps, etc., then I think it would make sense to throttle torrents to a level that makes their strain on the network equivalent to an HTTP download. This would have the consequence of both discouraging people from using torrents, and increasing HTTP speeds because of the decreased congestion, providing an incentive to use HTTP for legal content.

The true core of net neutrality is what matters most: that ISPs can’t discriminate based on content, origin, or destination of traffic. This is the part that will encourage innovation and keep the market open. The other part of net neutrality, that is to not throttle based on protocol, would be nice, but may not be realistic. I think that if people were a little more pragmatic about this, we might end up with a law that will please both the ISPs and the majority of users. (And most of the unhappy users would be pirates.)

I should note that when I say that ISPs should be able to throttle based on protocol, that is only for protocols that inherently cause congestion, i.e. P2P protocols. ISPs should not be able to throttle Google’s SPDY in favor of HTTP, because they are similar in the type of traffic that they provide.

I think you are nit-picking. It looks generally good to me. I don’t see why broadband providers shouldn’t be allowed to use the connection to offer additional services to only their customers, as long as they don’t *restrict* the ability of others to use that internet connection.

As for wireless, unlike in a wired environment, wireless bandwidth is a finite shared resource. That is definitely different from the wired internet, even if you can use it for the same things.

…I don’t see why broadband providers shouldn’t be allowed to use the connection to offer additional services to only their customers, as long as they don’t *restrict* the ability of others to use that internet connection.

There is the issue right there. This is all about restricting “the ability of others to use that internet connection”. Providers already offer additional services to only their customers, the difference being that now they can’t restrict it, where with this proposal they could.

What.. and my broadband provider’s loop shared between my house and every other home in the area isn’t a finite amount of bandwidth? What really needs to happen; providers need to upgrade there networks and come anywhere close to catching up to the rest of the world (CA and US are way behind now) and providers need to accept that they are dumb pipes. Give me my friggin bits at the rate promised regardless of what bits I may draw in. 50 bits of data is 50 bits regardless of if it’s torrent/ssh/http/voip or services they get direct income from.

The US may no longer have full Internet containment but they remain firmly in control of the root servers and a big chunk of the network’s core. Besides, US implemented bad ideas have a way of leaking out to other nations, you can bet they’ll push this crap outside US boarders if they manage to get it past inside the borders.

The idea of Net Neutrality is to provide a free market where any entrant can have a fair chance of competition. It is the natural state of the Internet and a primary reason it’s grown as it has when other networks have gone nowhere. Removing neutrality is what enables the distorted market by big layers and anti-competitive resistance to new entrants.

>>The idea of Net Neutrality is to provide a free market where any entrant can have a fair chance of competition.

If you believe in free markets, then why are you supporting having the government step in and govern ISPs and providers? If people don’t want to pay for a tiered service, then they will shop elsewhere. That is how the free market works…not giving all of the power to the FCC to determine who is breaking the rules. As soon as government gets involved with anything they mess it up. Sounds like you want the government to pick who is the winner and who has access to what…

>>It is the natural state of the Internet and a primary reason it’s grown as it has when other networks have gone nowhere.

The internet has grown so fast because governments have not been able to put any rules on it, not because OF government. Hell, they can’t even charge sales taxes on internet sales.

The funny part about the Net Neutrality argument is that there are really no cases that people can site in the U.S. where Net Neutrality has been violated even without another law passed…

My focus is the neutrality of the network far more than who imposes it. The problem with the mega-corporations is that they won’t regulate themselves. If the did, there would be no discussion of neutrality in the first place. Ideally, the users would impose this or shop elsewhere but the with Internet.. what other global network are they going to migrate too? There is a far higher probability of a tiered internet and anti-competitive practices if the corporations are left to govern themselves; as Verizon and Google are demonstrating.

I also don’t see the inherent outcome of regulation being the FCC choosing the winner. It doesn’t have to be like the radio waves where the digital radio carriers have hosed the public through FCC manipulation. Do you complain when the Gov investigates a company like Microsoft for anti-competitive practices against the market? Is it ok for them to regulate the market when real harm can be done to it and the consumer? Why can’t FCC imposing neutrality have the same out come protecting the market and consumer?

The real problem is not the FCC imposing neutrality but the citizenry allowing the corporations to dictate neutrality to the FCC. I can understand that concern along with the fact that your Gov needs a thoroughly cleansing enema replacing professional politicians with people who would do the job for the people. But do you honestly think that the corporations are going to self regulate in anything but the corporate interest? They’ve already demonstrated what direction they want to take it throughout the last decade. Talk about tiered internet goes all the way back to the first civilian broadband installs where Internet 2.0 was supposed to be stinking fast big business, University and rich connections and modem/average speed for everyone who couldn’t pay a premium.

In anti-trust cases where a monopoly possition can harm the market and consumer, it takes regulating intervention. The mega-corps want to turn the internet into an olagarchy (only because no one yet own enough network to make it a monopoly dictatorship), it may very well take regulating intervention.

If your government can’t do that in the people’s best interest then your problem isn’t government regulation but the government itself. I think the constitution still allows the people to fix that.. so get on with it.

>>My focus is the neutrality of the network far more than who imposes it. The problem with the mega-corporations is that they won’t regulate themselves.

Their customers will “regulate” by changing ISP,etc. They just won’t buy the product. The customers know more and faster what they want than any government guy does.

>If the did, there would be no discussion of neutrality in the first place. Ideally, the users would impose this or shop elsewhere but the with Internet.. what other global network are they going to migrate too?

They just shop for another access point, not another internet. This happens all of the time. And people that think that these wireless carriers don’t have to throttle some of the net just to ease congestion on 3G networks are crazy…there is not enough wireless bandwidth to go around on 3 or 4G in big cities to ensure Net Neutrality.

>>There is a far higher probability of a tiered internet and anti-competitive practices if the corporations are left to govern themselves; as Verizon and Google are demonstrating.

Use another service, don’t let the government screw it up.

>>I also don’t see the inherent outcome of regulation being the FCC choosing the winner.

FCC is the one that is designated to do the enforcing in the new proposed regulations. Not something to guess about, it what has been advocated by Neutrality Supporters.

>>It doesn’t have to be like the radio waves where the digital radio carriers have hosed the public through FCC manipulation.

When did a 3G network become a wired system?

>>Do you complain when the Gov investigates a company like Microsoft for anti-competitive practices against the market? Is it ok for them to regulate the market when real harm can be done to it and the consumer?

There are no real cases of Net Neutrality violations currently. The whole argument is discussing something that has not happened yet.

>>Why can’t FCC imposing neutrality have the same out come protecting the market and consumer?

Because there are many un-intended consequences of the government running this thing. People in earlier posts talked about this.

>>The real problem is not the FCC imposing neutrality but the citizenry allowing the corporations to dictate neutrality to the FCC.

You can vote with your wallet immediately, you have to wait 4 years to vote at the polling booth.

>>I can understand that concern along with the fact that your Gov needs a thoroughly cleansing enema replacing professional politicians with people who would do the job for the people.

Even people with the best intensions can make rules that have consequences that they couldn’t see.

>>But do you honestly think that the corporations are going to self regulate in anything but the corporate interest?

They are in business to make money, but you don’t have to buy…the internet has grown wildly up until now with no regulation…why should we worry about it all of the sudden?

>>They’ve already demonstrated what direction they want to take it throughout the last decade. Talk about tiered internet goes all the way back to the first civilian broadband installs where Internet 2.0 was supposed to be stinking fast big business, University and rich connections and modem/average speed for everyone who couldn’t pay a premium.

The Internet has gotten cheaper, faster and more accessable than ever before…because of people looking to make money by providing access.

>>In anti-trust cases where a monopoly possition can harm the market and consumer, it takes regulating intervention.

There is no anti-trust here.

>>The mega-corps want to turn the internet into an olagarchy (only because no one yet own enough network to make it a monopoly dictatorship), it may very well take regulating intervention.

It hasn’t happened yet, and can’t because the internet is so unregulated. No one corporation has control over the internet, but the US government wants to have control…kind of reminds me of the China firewall…

>>If your government can’t do that in the people’s best interest then your problem isn’t government regulation but the government itself.

Most governments have stupid rules that cause more problems than they solve. Even the best intensions cause issues. Just leave things alone and enjoy the net in the free form that it’s in currently.

>>I think the constitution still allows the people to fix that.. so get on with it.

So, when the entire network is split into teirs.. they customer is going to have alternatives? When the Google/Verison framework blocks new entrants into the market, innovation and competition will flurish?

”

Their customers will “regulate” by changing ISP,etc. They just won’t buy the product. The customers know more and faster what they want than any government guy does.

”

You must mean that same huge consumer base that purchases products based on quality and technical features rather than marketing and shiny blinkey lights.. for example:

Force someone under the idea that I know best with no input from them.. heck no.. I don’t even do that to my own family. I’m arguing the very opposite of that kind of behavior being imposed by the corporations trying to remove neutrality and free market forces from the Internet.

This doesn’t change the fact that consumer markets are riddled with the graves of products that benefited the consumer more but couldn’t compete against the marketing of lesser products. I truly wish this was a perfect world with healthy free markets regulated by the natural market forces but the technology industry is far from it.

I truly wish this was a perfect world with healthy free markets regulated by the natural market forces but the technology industry is far from it.

This suggests that this is (as I mentioned in another comment) a choice between an imperfect market and a perfect law.

Reality will show it as one between an imperfect market and an imperfect law.

Even our imperfect market will adapt to the rapid pace of technology much better than any law. That is not only theory; it has a decent track record of doing so. Watch some movies from about 10-15y and check out the computers, cellphones, little warbling modems, etc. Then pick up your Android and IM a buddy to come over and watch the latest episode of Psych streaming HD off Amazon VoD. Watch “Double Rainbow All the Way” on YouTube on your phone while you wait, or better yet, use it to reply on OSNews about the imperfections of the market.

Even if that law and the lawgivers were all acting in good faith they could not keep up, which I sincerely doubt with the powerful and wealthy petitioning for special favors.*

* If you are of the gloom and doom camp, you might note that the special interests always win. It is worth it to them to focus their time and energy constantly on achieving a special tax break, a special exemption, a special something. Millions are spent everyday on such things. The rest of us have other jobs, other claims on our time, just plain other concerns. There may be more of us, but we haven’t the time or the ability to organize and counter everything that might negatively affect us, but benefit them. There are so many little tweaks, little wording changes introduced that it would take absolute dedication to keep up — the kind of dedication that is worthwhile to them, the beneficiaries, but not to anyone else. In the end, once the legal framework has been created to regulate everybody, they’ll get it (re)shaped their way.

You can have the best product in the world, and if you can’t market it, it won’t get popular. Or, there are features that engineers think are really hot but the consumer couldn’t give a crap less about them…no one knows exactly what is best for every consumer.

This is the kind of crappy logic that a certain political party in the united states always brings out. Its complete horse manure concocted by those who don’t understand how the common good has and continues to benefit them. Crappy, crappy, logic devoid arguments like this are why I want to stay far, far away from politics. Please go away. This is OS news. I want news about Operating Systems, not the F’ng O’Reilly factor.

Shooting for a legal solution to net neutrality is going to end in tears. It will be (like most exercises in political economy) a tool for the best connected firms to get the laws written in their favor, raising barriers to entry and restricting competition. The beauty is it won’t just be difficult to compete, it will be illegal.

If there is one thing that is likely to truly bring about the draconian restrictions on the Internet that people are fearing, it will be whatever law we end up with on the far side of this net neutrality crusade.

This is bit off the main point, so I didn’t want to place it in the above.

There are several problems with allowing certain market participants to decide what rules everyone else must follow. Specifically, the wired providers know best the limitations and costs that they face, just as the wireless people understand their own limitations and costs.

How great do you think this is going to end if the wired providers all decide what rules the wireless guys have to follow, and the wireless ones what the wired must follow?

They each understand each others’ business a bit, but not as well as they understand their own. They would make poor decisions even with the best of intentions.

And one can never get away from the tremendous temptation to act in bad faith, and use the law to pile burdens on your competitors, crafting it to accentuate your strengths and exploit their weaknesses.

And what can they do? It’s the law. Only thing left is for the losers to gain (*cough* buy *cough*) more influence, and get the law changed in their favor.

It isn’t all adversarial though. There is always a common ground where even the staunchest competitors will agree: to keep out any new players. They may not like each other, but all the big boys can always agree on one thing at least, that nobody else should get a chance to play in the game.

That does exemplify part of the problem. The US gov has grown into a political monster. It used to be of the people, for the people, by the people. It has become of the contractor, for the contractor, by the contractor. I’m an outsider though so take a US citizen’s word for it. Robert Steele is a heck of a smart guy and after a long career in intelligence and politics, I’ll listen to what he has to say.

Apple and ATT already have you paying at both ends of the pipe. Neutrality of the data in between benefits them just as a tiered strategy benefits Google/Verison. They’re all money grubbing bastard corporations in the end, the real product is profit marges, services/products are just the tool used to harvest wallets.

Oh yeah,the article is just filled to the brim with praise for Google and Verizon:

Google and Verizon pretty much butcher the concept of the internet… Google and Verizon pull a major testicle move by slicing up the internet purely based on access method… Yeah, this is pretty bad and completely arbitrary… This Additional Online Services thing is basically a major cop-out on Google’s part…

But hey, don’t let reality get in the way of your need to believe that everything revolves around Apple.

I don’t see a Tiered proposal from A & A, do you?

AHAHAHAHahahahahaha, and you seriously believe AT&T isn’t planning to do the exact same thing? Verizon just beat them to it (nothing new there).

I always like it when corporations tries to come up with good ideas, they always fail (see: DiVX (DVD rental system)). The only good ideas come from consumers and individual inventors, business is just made to produce it for anyone else that wants one.

Give it enough bad press and they’ll back away.

Plus, there’s too much class warfare going on in the US to make a pay-for-tiered service at least an ill-timed idea, if not ill conceived.

Just so long as it’s implemented against a tiered internet structure..

Friggin brilliant. The point of net neutrality is to avoid a tiered class based Internet. Sadly, these gymnastics tricks have a much higher chance of success against the politicians than they should. What are the chances the Gov uses a real panel of experts to comment on this? My cup of pessimism runith over.

Frankly, anyone who is against net neutrality simply doesn’t understand the internet, and should not be allowed to make decisions affecting it.

The major complaint that I see is: “OMG! The government is taking control of the internet!” What these people fail to realize is that the government is not going to “control” the internet, just force it to be fair. And the alternative is allowing roughly ten large corporations actually control the the internet.

Here is the question: do you want to create a system where only the big players can compete, or do you want a system that is fair for all?

I don’t know. I suppose this could fall under the gov’t jurisdiction. I’m a libertarian and generally oppose federal government involvement in anything, but I do accept that some interstate regulation of trade and infrastructure does have to occur – or we’d be living in the mid to late 1800’s all over again – slave wages, 2 classes, etc.

Grab some Tullock to read, or just think about how pretty much every major policy issue in all recorded history gets written to favor the best connected.

Giving the government control* is the worst possible solution. It isn’t that it is perfect when the government isn’t in control–it is just better. The false choice here is between an imperfect market and a perfect law. Well, if such a beast existed, the perfect law would be better. But it doesn’t, and it won’t. Even if it were “perfect” now, the landscape changes much, much faster than the law will (or can) change, so it would need to be kept in a constant state of “perfection” through constant changes. Each change will be done with only the best motives and the comprehensive understanding of both technology and business that politicians are selected for. (The Internet is not a truck! It is a series of tubes!)

If you are really, really lucky the first draft of the law will be “pure” (this particular deal shows how likely that is to happen). Within 5y it will exist with no other purpose than to protect the entrenched firms with the best lobbyists from any competition. How else would they be able to have the cash on hand to hire all those ex-politicians for part-time, $500k/year “consulting” jobs after they retire?

* I use “control” advisedly. Anytime one party can say, “Do it my way or go to prison,” I acknowledge that person as the one in control.

If this arrangement between Google and Verizon is allowed to stand unchallenged, we can expect more such deals from competing major players.

Not only will net neutrality be dead, we’ll exist within a complex, uneven playing field of different service levels and communications rules.

The US government (FCC) needs to step up to the plate and enforce a net neutrality similar to what we expect with phone service. Pres. Obama specifically promised this during the presidential campaign. For the sake of our future internet, I hope he holds to his promise.

I’m not worried one bit about net neutrality. The reason? The Comcast/Universal merger. Once the merger is complete and the potential is there that Comcast will throttle the Fox News site in favor of MSNBC, all opposition to net neutrality will melt away.

I’m not worried one bit about net neutrality. The reason? The Comcast/Universal merger. Once the merger is complete and the potential is there that Comcast will throttle the Fox News site in favor of MSNBC, all opposition to net neutrality will melt away.

It is foolish to believe that bureaucratic regulators won’t be eventually outsmarted by the adaptive and dynamic free market. The smarter approach would’ve been to reward what you want instead of trying to punish and force your way around.

I am not against differential pricing as long as all providers are giving equal access.

If Google and verizon want to make a deal to make Google sites faster… I have no issue with that as long as Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, MyNewWebsite can all get that same deal with the same pricing.

I see the providers as no different from consumers in this regard. Consumers have differential pricing as well. I can choose different speeds, bandwidth limits… as it should be.

Net neutrality is a vague concept that can get very murky and as long as everything is clear, I have no problem… whether it is co-locating servers, or even reserving bandwidth for premium services.

Let us imagine Version has a 100 MB/s pipe.

They use 20 MB/s pipe for ‘premium’ services.

As long as they state, I have unlimited access to my internet connection shared with 1000 users over 80 MB/s pipe, I have no issue.

The need for such becomes even more important as generic services start going to the internet. TV over the web is becoming a reality. What if Netflix/Hulu could get reserved bandwidth to ensure smooth playback.

This is as opposed to today where ISPs can actually screw with those services and perhaps cynically justifiably so given their network impact, like Rogers did in Canada by lowering bandwidth caps in anticipation of their arrival.